3 ms·

> Agenda driven science is bad science. The people promoting eugenics dressed up with trendier terms also have an agenda.

ZhuanXia 7y ago
To eliminate Mendelian disease. To increase lifespan, health, intellectual ability, and productivity? This is quite possible with minimal technological advancement. Why exactly is this bad? Because we saw a Star Trek episode? Shunning these technologies will be seen, in time, as akin to the shunning of inoculations in the Victorian era. When you find yourself cheering on, however indirectly, Mendelian disease consider perhaps that you are one of the baddies.
- throwawaytkgll 7y ago
  We are nowhere near any of the things you mention and a bunch of GWASes aren't going to change this.
  - MagnumOpus 7y ago
    Genomic diagnostics for trisomies or other conditions on embryos are routine. Pre implantation diagnosis for all the conditions mentioned above will be commercially available in 2-3 years, and cheap enough for the Everyman in less than 10. And everyone who can afford it will use it, no matter their public views.
    - throwawaytkgIl 7y ago
      Yes, we picked the low hanging fruit a long time ago - the rare variants causing devlopmental defects etc. This is not what we are talking about. As for your predictions - they've been said over and over again ever since I started embarking on the genomics hype 7 years ago. The reality is much more boring and selecting for complex traits that heavily interact with the environment is bound to have disappointing returns.
allovernow 7y ago
>terms also have an agenda Even if it is an agenda, it still represents a wealth of evidence of an entire other side to the question of human behavior. This kind of immediate dismissal, slandering by accusations of "eugenics" or other euphamisms for racism, is exactly how the status quo is maintained without any overt conspiracy or cabal as referenced by other commenters. This isn't a question of scientifically justified racial supremacy. Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo. Opening up the discourse doesn't automatically push us into some twisted genetic caste dystopia - the nature of population distributions is such that individuals can still be judged by their own merits and we all still deserve the same rights as human beings.
- xamuel 7y ago
  >Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo. A thousand times this. If the taboo'd claims are false, then the other side should welcome discussion and scientific experimentation, as that will further prove the taboo'd claims false. Suppose a group of people claim the sky is actually brown, not blue. Suppose academics and governments respond harshly, silencing all such people and banning all attempts to determine the color of the sky. This would have the exact opposite of the intended effect, it would make people wonder what's up with the blue-skyers' irrational behavior, and it would make people wonder what the blue skyers are trying to hide. Instead, let the brown-skyers talk and let them perform their experiments, and it will become manifestly clear that they are mistaken!
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  > Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo. Two things to say here. First, truth is in the eye of the beholder, even in science. There is still plenty of research into discredited theories because the proponents don't care, and they can recruit new believers by being selective in their presentation of the evidence, and screaming that the opposition is irrational. Second, what is irrational about not pursuing lines of research that one considers will inevitably lead to eugenics? Is ethics in scientific research irrational? Science is not some perfectly neutral abstract playing field, it has real impacts on the world.

ZhuanXia 7y ago

To eliminate Mendelian disease. To increase lifespan, health, intellectual ability, and productivity? This is quite possible with minimal technological advancement. Why exactly is this bad? Because we saw a Star Trek episode? Shunning these technologies will be seen, in time, as akin to the shunning of inoculations in the Victorian era. When you find yourself cheering on, however indirectly, Mendelian disease consider perhaps that you are one of the baddies.

throwawaytkgll 7y ago
We are nowhere near any of the things you mention and a bunch of GWASes aren't going to change this.
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  Genomic diagnostics for trisomies or other conditions on embryos are routine. Pre implantation diagnosis for all the conditions mentioned above will be commercially available in 2-3 years, and cheap enough for the Everyman in less than 10. And everyone who can afford it will use it, no matter their public views.
  - throwawaytkgIl 7y ago
    Yes, we picked the low hanging fruit a long time ago - the rare variants causing devlopmental defects etc. This is not what we are talking about. As for your predictions - they've been said over and over again ever since I started embarking on the genomics hype 7 years ago. The reality is much more boring and selecting for complex traits that heavily interact with the environment is bound to have disappointing returns.

allovernow 7y ago

>terms also have an agenda Even if it is an agenda, it still represents a wealth of evidence of an entire other side to the question of human behavior. This kind of immediate dismissal, slandering by accusations of "eugenics" or other euphamisms for racism, is exactly how the status quo is maintained without any overt conspiracy or cabal as referenced by other commenters. This isn't a question of scientifically justified racial supremacy. Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo. Opening up the discourse doesn't automatically push us into some twisted genetic caste dystopia - the nature of population distributions is such that individuals can still be judged by their own merits and we all still deserve the same rights as human beings.

xamuel 7y ago
>Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo. A thousand times this. If the taboo'd claims are false, then the other side should welcome discussion and scientific experimentation, as that will further prove the taboo'd claims false. Suppose a group of people claim the sky is actually brown, not blue. Suppose academics and governments respond harshly, silencing all such people and banning all attempts to determine the color of the sky. This would have the exact opposite of the intended effect, it would make people wonder what's up with the blue-skyers' irrational behavior, and it would make people wonder what the blue skyers are trying to hide. Instead, let the brown-skyers talk and let them perform their experiments, and it will become manifestly clear that they are mistaken!
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
> Some of us are actually interested in truth, which cannot be obtained if one perspective is irrationally forbidden as taboo. Two things to say here. First, truth is in the eye of the beholder, even in science. There is still plenty of research into discredited theories because the proponents don't care, and they can recruit new believers by being selective in their presentation of the evidence, and screaming that the opposition is irrational. Second, what is irrational about not pursuing lines of research that one considers will inevitably lead to eugenics? Is ethics in scientific research irrational? Science is not some perfectly neutral abstract playing field, it has real impacts on the world.